Re-registration of a birth 1928 - complete re-write or amended on the original?

[Tickettyboo]

yep that covers it, thanks Deidre.

Boo

[AntonyMMM]

I am starting to think that the original entry was an illegitimate birth, registered in the first married name of the mother - which was still her legal name at that time so that would be how it was shown in the index  and with her correct maiden name.
Then they decided  to 'legitimise' his birth and toddled along in 1928 to do that.

Does that sound plausible?

Boo

That is the most likely explanation, the 1922 and 1928 entries are separate and different registrations, although you can't be 100% sure of what is on them without obtaining certificates from both entries.

The "Occasional Copy A" reference means that a copy was submitted to GRO outside of the normal quarterly returns process - if that is noted against the 1922 entry, it probably just refers to a marginal note that was added in 1928 to say the birth had been re-registered later.

[Tickettyboo]

I am starting to think that the original entry was an illegitimate birth, registered in the first married name of the mother - which was still her legal name at that time so that would be how it was shown in the index  and with her correct maiden name.
Then they decided  to 'legitimise' his birth and toddled along in 1928 to do that.

Does that sound plausible?

Boo

That is the most likely explanation, the 1922 and 1928 entries are separate and different registrations, although you can't be 100% sure of what is on them without obtaining certificates from both entries.

The "Occasional Copy A" reference means that a copy was submitted to GRO outside of the normal quarterly returns process - if that is noted against the 1922 entry, it probably just refers to a marginal note that was added in 1928 to say the birth had been re-registered later.

Thank you. It really doesn't help that the later children were all registered with the mother's second (possibly legal, possibly not) married name, but her first married name as the MMN.

I realise that would depend on who registered the birth and what the question was 'What was the birth surname of the mother' or 'What was the mother's surname before she married the father' may produce different (but truthful) responses.

Boo

[AntonyMMM]

I realise that would depend on who registered the birth and what the question was 'What was the birth surname of the mother' or 'What was the mother's surname before she married the father' may produce different (but truthful) responses.

Neither of those questions would fit with the definition of a woman's maiden name that is  used by registrars so would be a very odd way of asking...

[Tickettyboo]

Maybe just my lot who were possibly hard of understanding, then :-)
I have a fair few records where, depending on who registered the birth, a different MMN was given. For instance if the mother registered, the MMN is recorded correctly .

Other children, registered by the father or a neighbour (who may or may not have known her maiden name) have her previous married name as the MMN. (I do have the certs and it does all add up)

This happened with more than one family and has caused me many headaches over the years :-)

Boo